100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq

Discussion in 'World Events' started by Porfiry, Oct 29, 2004.

  1. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879


    I forget how many people did the sanctions kill?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    is that the terrorists fault also? Think they may be a little upset about that? And stop using the word "infidel" I guess in your ignorant mind you think this is a muslim thing but before the illegal invasion I dont remember Iraqi's trying to kill Americans do you? But typical ignorant Westerner....kill 100k Iraqi's and somehow it's there fault

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. VAKEMP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    No, it is Saddam's fault. He was a dictator that thought about himself above his people. The oil for food scandal is a good example of this. Then again, the mass graves found throughout Iraq are testament to this also.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Yes. I would be upset if I was ruled by a dictator who killed his daughters' husbands after promising not to touch them if they returned from fleeing.

    When I use the term 'infidel', do you think it is a Muslim thing? Tell me, why would you come to that conclusion?

    And no, Iraqi's weren't trying to kill Americans. At least, not Iraqi's exclusively. I never implied the terrorists were just Iraqi's.

    Also, Americans aren't their only target. They just happen to be #1 on their infidel hit list.

    I didn't say it was their fault. I said it was the terrorist's fault. If they chose to set up camp in the mountains or in the desert I can guarantee you the civilian casualty count would go down tremendously. Why? Because the US and its allies are not trying to kill the civilians. Is it really that hard to understand? :bugeye:
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    No, it's the fault of a single man. Saddam Hussein.

    Actually yes they were. They hated Saddam, except those who were ignorant enough to blame everyone but him for it.

    So you think the insurgency is secular? LOL.

    Who said the peaceful Iraqis were to blame? It seems your frustration and anger with the situation clouds your ability to rationally analyze the situation. Maybe you're just not rational to begin with?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    No, it is Saddam's fault. He was a dictator that thought about himself above his people.

    Well wait a second here, how is it his fault that sanctions were placed on him? The irony here is that Saddam did actually comply with the WMD demands of the UN. Now this is funny think, during the 90’s Saddam still got Lobsters from the Bay of Biscay, while the Iraqi people will dying in droves? Wasn’t those sanctions supposed to topple a regime not kill the people of Iraq? Now to me it’s pretty obvious as to why the sanctions were so harsh because it was hoped that the Iraqi people would overthrow Saddam out of desperation. According to some that was happening, the Iraqi regime was rotten at the core. The US should have supported an Insurrection against Saddam and left the Iraqi’s to do their own bidding.

    Yes. I would be upset if I was ruled by a dictator who killed his daughters' husbands after promising not to touch them if they returned from fleeing.

    Well honestly now they were quite stupid to actually trust Saddam that they wouldn’t have been killed. Would you go back honestly?

    When I use the term 'infidel', do you think it is a Muslim thing? Tell me, why would you come to that conclusion?

    Its not used in any other context in the modern era…its only really used in the Islamic context. It’s a reasonable conclusion to come to when you are discussing the Islamic Middle East.

    I didn't say it was their fault. I said it was the terrorist's fault. If they chose to set up camp in the mountains or in the desert I can guarantee you the civilian casualty count would go down tremendously. Why? Because the US and its allies are not trying to kill the civilians. Is it really that hard to understand?

    What is really hard to understand is your insistence on using a term that does not correspond to the actual meaning of the term. Terrorist in this context cannot be used, actually it can be argued that the US is the terrorist in this action, killing 12,000 innocents (if not much more), illegally invading a nation that did not provoke a military action, etc. These people are by definition not terrorists…
     
  8. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    What is Terrorism?

    Well that brings us back to the question, what is terrorism? I have been assuming we understand it. Well, what is it? Well, there happen to be some easy answers to this. There is an official definition. You can find it in the US code or in US army manuals. A brief statement of it taken from a US army manual, is fair enough, is that terror is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear. That’s terrorism. That’s a fair enough definition. I think it is reasonable to accept that. The problem is that it can’t be accepted because if you accept that, all the wrong consequences follow. For example, all the consequences I have just been reviewing. Now there is a major effort right now at the UN to try to develop a comprehensive treaty on terrorism. When Kofi Annan got the Nobel prize the other day, you will notice he was reported as saying that we should stop wasting time on this and really get down to it.

    But there’s a problem. If you use the official definition of terrorism in the comprehensive treaty you are going to get completely the wrong results. So that can’t be done. In fact, it is even worse than that. If you take a look at the definition of Low Intensity Warfare which is official US policy you find that it is a very close paraphrase of what I just read. In fact, Low Intensity Conflict is just another name for terrorism. That’s why all countries, as far as I know, call whatever horrendous acts they are carrying out, counter terrorism. We happen to call it Counter Insurgency or Low Intensity Conflict. So that’s a serious problem. You can’t use the actual definitions. You’ve got to carefully find a definition that doesn’t have all the wrong consequences.

    Why did the United States and Israel Vote Against a Major Resolution Condemning Terrorism?

    There are some other problems. Some of them came up in December 1987, at the peak of the first war on terrorism, that’s when the furor over the plague was peaking. The United Nations General Assembly passed a very strong resolution against terrorism, condemning the plague in the strongest terms, calling on every state to fight against it in every possible way. It passed unanimously. One country, Honduras abstained. Two votes against; the usual two, United States and Israel. Why should the United States and Israel vote against a major resolution condemning terrorism in the strongest terms, in fact pretty much the terms that the Reagan administration was using? Well, there is a reason. There is one paragraph in that long resolution which says that nothing in this resolution infringes on the rights of people struggling against racist and colonialist regimes or foreign military occupation to continue with their resistance with the assistance of others, other states, states outside in their just cause. Well, the United States and Israel can’t accept that. The main reason that they couldn’t at the time was because of South Africa. South Africa was an ally, officially called an ally. There was a terrorist force in South Africa. It was called the African National Congress. They were a terrorist force officially. South Africa in contrast was an ally and we certainly couldn’t support actions by a terrorist group struggling against a racist regime. That would be impossible.

    And of course there is another one. Namely the Israeli occupied territories, now going into its 35th year. Supported primarily by the United States in blocking a diplomatic settlement for 30 years now, still is. And you can’t have that. There is another one at the time. Israel was occupying Southern Lebanon and was being combated by what the US calls a terrorist force, Hizbullah, which in fact succeeded in driving Israel out of Lebanon. And we can’t allow anyone to struggle against a military occupation when it is one that we support so therefore the US and Israel had to vote against the major UN resolution on terrorism. And I mentioned before that a US vote against…is essentially a veto. Which is only half the story. It also vetoes it from history. So none of this was every reported and none of it appeared in the annals of terrorism. If you look at the scholarly work on terrorism and so on, nothing that I just mentioned appears. The reason is that it has got the wrong people holding the guns. You have to carefully hone the definitions and the scholarship and so on so that you come out with the right conclusions; otherwise it is not respectable scholarship and honorable journalism. Well, these are some of problems that are hampering the effort to develop a comprehensive treaty against terrorism. Maybe we should have an academic conference or something to try to see if we can figure out a way of defining terrorism so that it comes out with just the right answers, not the wrong answers. That won’t be easy.

    http://www.zmag.org/GlobalWatch/chomskymit.htm
     
  9. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    And Noam speaking of the true goals of the sanctions:
    The one constant is that the US must end up in control of Iraq. Saddam Hussein was authorized to suppress, brutally, a 1991 uprising that might have overthrown him because "the best of all worlds" for Washington would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta without Saddam Hussein" (by then an embarrassment), which would rule the country with an "iron fist" as Saddam had done with US support and approval (NYT chief diplomatic correspondent Thomas Friedman). The uprising would have left the country in the hands of Iraqis who might not have subordinated themselves sufficiently to Washington. The murderous sanctions regime of the following years devastated the society, strengthened the tyrant, and compelled the population to rely for survival on his (highly efficient) system for distributing basic goods. The sanctions thus undercut the possibility of the kind of popular revolt that had overthrown an impressive series of other monsters who had been strongly supported by the current incumbents in Washington up to the very end of their bloody rule: Marcos, Duvalier, Ceausescu, Mobutu, Suharto, and a long list of others, some of them easily as tyrannical and barbaric as Saddam. Had it not been for the sanctions, Saddam probably would have gone the same way, as has been pointed out for years by the Westerners who know Iraq best, Denis Halliday and Hans van Sponeck (though one has to go to Canada, England, or elsewhere to find their writings). But overthrow of the regime from within would not be acceptable either, because it would leave Iraqis in charge. The Azores summit merely reiterated that stand.

    Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to Bush I, just repeated the obvious: "What's going to happen the first time we hold an election in Iraq and it turns out the radicals win? What do you do? We're surely not going to let them take over."

    The same holds throughout the region. Recent studies reveal that from Morocco to Lebanon to the Gulf, about 95% of the population want a greater role in government for Islamic religious figures, and the same percentage believe that the sole US interest in the region is to control its oil and strengthen Israel. Antagonism to Washington has reached unprecedented heights, and the idea that Washington would institute a radical change in policy and tolerate truly democratic elections, respecting the outcome, seems rather fanciful, to say the least.



    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=41&ItemID=3450
     
  10. VAKEMP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    It became his fault when he decided to invade Kuwait and threatened to use chemical/biological weapons, AND fired ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks.

    Correction: The irony here is that, based on information released after the fact, he complied with the UN sanctions, but refused to tell the UN this or allow UN inspectors to confirm it. Oh, and he didn't tell his top aides either. At least, not until the stealth bombers were in the air.

    I don't think that is funny. Saddam obviously didn't care about his people.

    Not topple a regime, necessarily. His failure to comply led to that.

    So, everyone at the UN wanted Saddam out?

    Oh, the US should have done it, not the UN?

    Yeah, they were pretty stupid for believing him.

    Would it be unreasonable to conclude that the majority of the terrorists are Muslim? Would it also be ignorant to think that the majority of the terrorists consider us 'infidels' because of their interpretation of Islam?

    When someone videotapes a beheading, it is terrorism. It is to be used to scare their enemy. Please direct me to a reference on a US government website that suggests the US is attempting to terrorize Iraqi's.
     
  11. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Ah, the mind of a venomous child:

    "These people are by definition not terrorists… "

    Terrorists are people who engage in the tactic of terrifying people to some political end.

    The insurgency is a terrorist operation because of the tactics they use. They are exactly, by definition, terrorists.

    Do I even have to given examples? Televised beheadings? Blowing up police volunteers, people just trying to get a job to feed their families and keep their country safe? I'd wager the insurgents have killed more Iraqis than Americans. They threaten locals to join or die.

    That's terrorism.
     
  12. VAKEMP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    Saddam failed to comply to the UN sanctions. He was removed from power and his military was disbanded. The US/UK is not fighting the Iraqi military anymore, nor are they fighting a (willing) Iraqi resistance to freedom. I say 'willing' because, as I'm sure you are aware but refuse to admit, the terrorists are threatening to kill the families of the men who refuse to fight in their 'Jihad'. Things would be different in Iraq right now if the terrorists hadn't decided to wage their 'holy war' on the 'infidels' in Iraq.

    The US went in to Iraq to overthrow Saddam and his regime based on noncompliance with UN sanctions, which was their right (or any member states' right), based on UN resolution 687.

    They are now fighting terrorists who have 'illegally invaded' Iraq to kill the 'infidels'.
     
  13. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    So, we defied the U.N. and invaded Iraq for... defying the U.N.?

    Today, It is We Americans Who Live in Infamy
    by Arthur Schlesinger Jr.


    NEW YORK -- We are at war again -- not because of enemy attack, as in World War II, nor because of incremental drift, as in the Vietnam War -- but because of the deliberate and premeditated choice of our own government.

    Now that we are embarked on this misadventure, let us hope that our intervention will be swift and decisive, and that victory will come with minimal American, British and civilian Iraqi casualties.

    But let us continue to ask why our government chose to impose this war. The choice reflects a fatal turn in U.S. foreign policy, in which the strategic doctrine of containment and deterrence that led us to peaceful victory during the Cold War has been replaced by the Bush Doctrine of preventive war. The president has adopted a policy of "anticipatory self-defense" that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor on a date which, as an earlier American president said it would, lives in infamy.

    Franklin D. Roosevelt was right, but today it is we Americans who live in infamy. The global wave of sympathy that engulfed the United States after 9/11 has given way to a global wave of hatred of American arrogance and militarism. Public opinion polls in friendly countries regard George W. Bush as a greater threat to peace than Saddam Hussein. Demonstrations around the planet, instead of denouncing the vicious rule of the Iraqi president, assail the United States on a daily basis.

    The Bush Doctrine converts us into the world's judge, jury and executioner -- a self-appointed status that, however benign our motives, is bound to corrupt our leadership. As John Quincy Adams warned on July 4, 1821, the fundamental maxims of our policy "would insensibly change from liberty to force ... [America] might become the dictatress of the world. She would no longer be the ruler of her own spirit." Already the collateral damage to our civil liberties and constitutional rights, carried out by the religious fanatic who is our attorney general, is considerable -- and more is still to come.


    http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0322-01.htm
     
  14. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879



    What secret information are you privileged to that nobody else has?
     
  15. VAKEMP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    Actually, quite a lot.

    Unfortunately, I am not at liberty to discuss it with you.

    Fortunately, I make sure the information I share publicly has already made it to the news. So, I will find a reference for you.
     
  16. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Saddam failed to comply to the UN sanctions. He was removed from power and his military was disbanded.

    If he failed to comply with the sanctions why are there no WMD in Iraq? Stop living in the forced abode of ignorance please.

    The US/UK is not fighting the Iraqi military anymore, nor are they fighting a (willing) Iraqi resistance to freedom. I say 'willing' because, as I'm sure you are aware but refuse to admit, the terrorists are threatening to kill the families of the men who refuse to fight in their 'Jihad'.

    You are telling me that all these people fighting are fighting because they have to? That is singularly the stupidest thing I have hread i a while about the war thus far. I agree with you of course that some people are even tied to cars so they can't get out of a car filled with explosives. But for the most part I doubt that 20,000+ Iraqi's are fighting because they are forced to. Sorry but that is not a terrorist action, and they aren't terrorists. Zarqarwi yes...but most aren't.

    Things would be different in Iraq right now if the terrorists hadn't decided to wage their 'holy war' on the 'infidels' in Iraq.

    It would have been different if the US didn't invade illegally, don't blame the effects, blame the cause.

    The US went in to Iraq to overthrow Saddam and his regime based on noncompliance with UN sanctions, which was their right (or any member states' right), based on UN resolution 687.

    Well that doesn't apply because he was in compliance...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    They are now fighting terrorists who have 'illegally invaded' Iraq to kill the 'infidels'.

    Some are most aren't...America is fighting a populist insurgency.
     
  17. VAKEMP Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    679
    He failed to comply to the part where it stated he must allow UN inspectors to confirm there were no WMD's. No one knew there weren't WMD's until Saddam was ousted, including his own aides.

    I wish you worked for the IRS. With your logic, all I'd have to do is tell you I paid my taxes and you wouldn't expect me to file every year!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I'm sorry you couldn't comprehend what I was saying.

    Let me break it down Barney-style for you:
    The US/UK military is no longer fighting Saddam's military. It is currently fighting Iraqi's and people from other countries who have flocked to Iraq to fight who they feel are their enemy based on their radical interpretation of their religion.

    I did blame the cause, which was Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions.

    You can argue until you are blue in the face that no WMD's are in Iraq, but the fact that Saddam failed to let the UN confirm that is HIS fault. The fact that the US decided to take action after the UN did nothing after Saddam defied the UN resolutions several times does not make the action illegal.

    Prove to me he was. Please. I'm sure you did your research on the UN resolutions and how Saddam did everything he could to comply so the sanctions would be lifted against the people he loved so much.

    You might suggest that the majority of the insurgency are Iraqi, but that doesn't mean that the majority of Iraqi's are insurgents.
     
  18. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    So you want to tout U.N. resolutions when they justify U.S. actions, but ignore them when they condemn them?

    I think Jacob Sullum said it best just before we invaded.

    If invading Iraq were justified as self-defense, it would not matter how the U.N. Security Council voted or whether other members of NATO were willing to go along. Our government has an obligation to defend American lives, regardless of what world opinion says.

    The search for legalistic justifications—involving debates about whether Iraq is in "material breach" of this or that U.N. resolution, or whether another resolution must be passed so that military action comports with international law—would be utterly beside the point if it were clear that Iraq posed an intolerable threat to the United States.

    In this connection, the Bush administration wants to have it both ways. Last summer Vice President Cheney declared that "a return of inspectors would provide no assurance whatsoever of [Saddam's] compliance with U.N. resolutions." So what is the point of the charade in which the U.S. has been engaged for the last several months?

    Even while signaling his disdain for business as usual at the U.N., Cheney made it sound as if U.S. policy is based on the enforcement of U.N. resolutions. But surely our country does not need the U.N.'s permission to defend itself. Evidently that is not what the U.S. is poised to do.

    http://www.reason.com/sullum/021403.shtml

    How many U.N. resolutions is Israel violating? Should we invade? The Palestinians wouldn't mind.

    And as I mentioned in the last thread where the subject came up, the inspectors were in Iraq, destroying Al Samoud missiles right up until they had to bug out because we were about to begin bombing.
     
  19. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    It became his fault when he decided to invade Kuwait and threatened to use chemical/biological weapons, AND fired ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks.

    That was not the basis for the sanctions was it? Wasn’t the basis for the sanctions his WMD programmes? I mean what you just uttered was the justification for the Gulf War not the actual sanctions themselves. So try again…what the hell do you think your genius President was uttering about 12 years of broken sanctions…about WMD not Kuwait.

    Correction: The irony here is that, based on information released after the fact, he complied with the UN sanctions, but refused to tell the UN this or allow UN inspectors to confirm it

    Well actually according to the information I read Saddam either thought he did have WMD because his scientists were to scared to tell him otherwise, or the alternate theory is that he maintained he had WMD in order to keep Iraq under his thumb his regime was so weak.

    I don't think that is funny. Saddam obviously didn't care about his people.

    I think it’s funny because Saddam prior to the sanctions gave his people the best living standards in the Middle East…oh yes the malevolent evil of it all. It seems that the US didn’t give two shits about the Iraqi people when they covered up the 1988 Halajba attacks for Saddam and blamed it on the Iranians. So yah…stop being a hypocrite.

    Not topple a regime, necessarily. His failure to comply led to that.

    His failure to comply does not exist.

    So, everyone at the UN wanted Saddam out?

    It depends on how you look at it; everyone had a stake in Iraq in some sense. Of course the sanctions were done to starve the regime out of power, or starve it to reform. You don't place sanctions for fun. I would imagine the Russians, French wanted Saddam to reform and the US, Israel, and the UK wanted him out.

    Oh, the US should have done it, not the UN?

    Fundamental difference, the US offered to do it in 1991 telling the Shi’a and Kurds she would support an insurrection, meanwhile the Americans in their F-15’s were looking at Mi-24’s simply bombarding villages and doing nothing about it. Again why are you Americans so virulently ignorant of history?

    Yeah, they were pretty stupid for believing him.

    So then who is the real evil? The idiot, or the killer?


    Would it be unreasonable to conclude that the majority of the terrorists are Muslim?

    Obviously they are…but just because they are Islamic doesn’t mean they are terrorists. I know that in the ever so anti-intellectual US military in which you reside everything is black and white, but it’s simply not that easy. Many are actually Arab nationalists…you know what that is right?

    Would it also be ignorant to think that the majority of the terrorists consider us 'infidels' because of their interpretation of Islam?

    It would ignorant to assert that all insurgents are terrorists, that’s all I am saying. Yes there are the terrorists in Iraq who kill civilians, behead them. But to classify all those fighting the US as terrorists is so intellectually dishonest the US will lose as a result. They don’t even co-ordinate so how can one be the same as the other…please stop spitting on intellect.

    When someone videotapes a beheading, it is terrorism. It is to be used to scare their enemy. Please direct me to a reference on a US government website that suggests the US is attempting to terrorize Iraqi's.

    There are at least 20,000 ppl fighting the US, not all of them do the same shit you are describing that is a very small number of people who don’t have any association with the vast majority of insurgents.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2004
  20. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    He failed to comply to the part where it stated he must allow UN inspectors to confirm there were no WMD's. No one knew there weren't WMD's until Saddam was ousted, including his own aides.

    But the UN was not done her inspections in March now was she how could we have discerned that? The President not Saddam kicked the inspectors out of Iraq before their work was done, and they found nothing…nada…zilch to support American claims of stockpiles. My theory is that the President knew nothing was going to be found, and if the inspectors did finish their job and found nothing his fallacious reasoning for war would be exposed.

    I wish you worked for the IRS. With your logic, all I'd have to do is tell you I paid my taxes and you wouldn't expect me to file every year!

    That was so…not funny indeed. My logic is fine because I have a grasp on history not buzz words that your commanders or the Bush team tells you. As I am slowly doing is exposing your jingoistic ignorance…my advice is to stop while you’re a little behind.

    The US/UK military is no longer fighting Saddam's military. It is currently fighting Iraqi's and people from other countries who have flocked to Iraq to fight who they feel are their enemy based on their radical interpretation of their religion.

    I think Barney is a bit too advanced for you to immolate…try an amoeba

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    , alas stop spew nonsense. The foreign fighters yes, but largely the fighters in Iraq are fighting for Iraq, or their specific sect in Iraq. The Sunni and the Shi’a are fighting for their respetive communities, and although they divide themselves along religious lines (as they have much longer then the US even existed) but they aren’t fighting for Islam they are fighting for their communities big difference.

    I did blame the cause, which was Saddam's failure to comply with UN resolutions.

    Look repeating the same thing over and over again is not going to work. Let’s review here with the UN (who you now vaunt as the moral guidance of war ironically enough more American hypocrisy exposed), the UN gave Saddam one last chance and guess what…he took it. He didn’t break the last resolution instead the US broke it by ending the inspections early. Again the cause was the US illegal, and unjustifiable war.

    Prove to me he was. Please. I'm sure you did your research on the UN resolutions and how Saddam did everything he could to comply so the sanctions would be lifted against the people he loved so much.

    I proved to you just now if the inspectors were allowed to do their job they would have found no WMD. Think for once genius…OBL must be very happy with your kind. Ignorance will make the US lose her war against an enemy that essentially is invisible.

    You might suggest that the majority of the insurgency are Iraqi, but that doesn't mean that the majority of Iraqi's are insurgents.

    No shit Sherlock…god you are amazing. One thing is for sure 90% of Iraqi’s want the US out and considers you occupiers not liberators. There is popular support in Iraq against the US not for it.
     
  21. rich68 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    you lot have losed the plot...yes it is bad news when 100,000dudes die....but hey thats war....thoses civilians new it was coming....should have got up and moved to there bumchums...syira...or iran...if they take them...what you dudes need to recall is...that saddam numnuts ruled for a sickning 30years...and guess what...more and more mass graves are being dug up.

    instead of thousands of innocent lifes being raped...tortured...and lets not forget...these are his own people!...the true sum could be in millions....and you lot dont even spare a thought about them...30years that shitbag ran that country into the ground...while the yankies sold arm over the years...predending to be mates...all for the cause of making dollars.

    bush has come along and carried on what his oldman should have finished...i say thankfuck...heres a bloke thats got balls...good on you bush...as for these numnuts writting up slagging down the system of human rights...i say power to the people...at last...for the 1st time in 30years...thay have a voice come january.
     
  22. Undecided Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,731
    Rich68 are u illiterate or simply ignorant because all the nonsense you just barfed to the world has been thoroughly disproven or refuted in this thread.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. s0meguy Worship me or suffer eternally Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,635
    kerry and Clinton would have done the same. So they stated in interviews. And if Bush is an idiot, you are one hell of an idiot. The presidents' actions are FAR beyond your understanding. For me it's just funny to see by what stupid and dumb ways Bush and Kerry are using to try getting votes from people like you.
     

Share This Page